Copyright Timeliness Toolkit: Accrual Chronologies, Tolling Agreements, and Limitations Motions

How to use this toolkit

These are drafts to adapt, and every bracket is a decision. Before you use any of them, identify your circuit's accrual rule and classify the claim, because the forms assume you have done that. Copyright Claim Timeliness Checklist: A Practical Checklist takes you through those steps in order, Evaluating the Timeliness of a Copyright Claim: A Practical Guide explains the sequence with examples, and The Copyright Statute of Limitations After Warner Chappell v. Nealy: Discovery, Separate Accrual, and How Far Back Damages Reach gives the doctrine.

Authority in the drafting notes is there so you can check it and cite it, and the forms are written to survive the most demanding reading of the current cases. A court in your district may ask for more or less. Pattern jury instructions, where your circuit has them, take priority over Tool 15.

Tool 1: Accrual chronology

Purpose: Put every date that could matter on one sheet with its source, so nobody argues from memory. Owner: Paralegal or associate; attorney reviews. Timing: Start in the first week and update whenever a document arrives.

Example rows (invented), for a map designer named Halvorsen suing an atlas app called Tern Atlas:

Drafting notes.

• List each act separately. The statute runs for each violation. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014), 572 U.S. at 671; Oracle America, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., 971 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2020).
• Include knowledge held by agents and employees. Note who knew first.
• Keep the "Confidence" column honest. It tells you what to prove and warns the team what cannot yet be asserted in a letter.
• Record what is absent. "No monitoring before 2024" is a fact the other side will want, and you should see it first. Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RADesign, Inc., 112 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2024) lists these facts as the ones that matter.
• Add a row for every earlier pleading the client filed. Those were decisive in Foss v. Eastern States Exposition, No. 24-1360 (1st Cir. Aug. 21, 2025).

Tool 2: Act-by-act window worksheet

Purpose: Convert the chronology into an answer for each act under each accrual rule. Owner: Responsible attorney. Timing: Before any demand or response; again before filing; again if an amendment adds claims or parties.

Filing date (actual or assumed): [DATE]. Line (filing date minus three years): [DATE]. Tolling days applied, if any: [N], basis: [AGREEMENT / CCB PROCEEDING / OTHER]. Adjusted line: [DATE].

Decision sequence for each row.

1. Does the act depend on a contested ownership claim? If yes, and three years have passed since repudiation, mark it barred and stop. Kwan v. Schlein, 634 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2011); Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment Ltd. v. Content Media Corp., 733 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2013).
2. Is the act on or after the line? If yes, mark it timely under both rules. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014).
3. Under the injury rule, mark any earlier act barred, subject to concealment-based tolling.
4. Under the discovery rule, did actual knowledge come before the line? If so, barred. Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 748 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2014).
5. Would a reasonably diligent owner have discovered it before the line? If so, barred. Hayden v. Koons, No. 25-498-cv (2d Cir. July 21, 2026); Oracle America, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., 971 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2020).
6. Otherwise timely. All its damages are available. Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, 601 U.S. 366 (2024).

Drafting notes.

• Compute back from the filing date. The Second Circuit corrected a calculation that ran three years forward from the first infringement. Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RADesign, Inc., 112 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2024).
• A tolling agreement changes the arithmetic by moving the reference date. See how the court counted from the tolling date in Oracle America, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., 971 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2020). That is why this sheet has an adjusted line.
• If copyright claims were added by amendment, run the sheet from the amendment date as well, and separately evaluate relation back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c). Motorola spoke of the three years before the copyright claims were added. Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp., 108 F.4th 458 (7th Cir. 2024).
• Commencement means filing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. Build in margin. See Missed Federal Deadlines: Rule 6, Excusable Neglect, and the Deadlines a Court Cannot Excuse.

Tool 3: Claim classification matrix

Purpose: Prevent the costliest error, treating an ownership case as an infringement case. Owner: Responsible attorney. Timing: First week.

Test questions to answer in writing.

1. If the defendant conceded title tomorrow, what would be left to try? If the answer is "nothing much," ownership is the gravamen.
2. Does the defendant claim through the same chain as the plaintiff, or is it a stranger? Ritchie v. Williams, 395 F.3d 283 (6th Cir. 2005) applies repudiation to close relationships. Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment Ltd. v. Content Media Corp., 733 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2013) left suits against unknown third parties open.
3. Is the dispute really about money under a contract? A dispute over a contract may not alert anyone to a challenge to the copyright. Estate of George Worrell, Jr. v. Thang, Inc., No. 25-1863 (6th Cir. May 27, 2026), drawing on Gaiman v. McFarlane, 360 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2004).

Drafting notes. On preemption, see Copyright Preemption Under Section 301: When Federal Law Wipes Out Your State Law Claim. On DMCA accrual, compare Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 922 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2019) with the discussion in Hayden v. Koons, No. 25-498-cv (2d Cir. July 21, 2026), which describes the question as open under § 1202 and declines to decide it. For the Copyright Claims Board's own timing rule, 17 U.S.C. § 1504(b), see The Copyright Claims Board: Small Claims Copyright Litigation Under the CASE Act.

Tool 4: Diligence and notice evidence log

Purpose: Collect the facts on whether the owner should have known, on both sides of the issue. Owner: Associate with investigator. Timing: Before any substantive letter; update through discovery.

Part A: Publicity and notice.

Part B: Monitoring.

Part C: Detectability of the use.

Part D: Red flags and response.

Drafting notes.

• Part C tracks what the Second Circuit said was missing from the record in Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RADesign, Inc., 112 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2024): how easy the infringement was to discover, what technology existed, whether the plaintiff used it, and with what frequency.
• Part A should link publicity to this plaintiff, as the record did in Hayden v. Koons, No. 25-498-cv (2d Cir. July 21, 2026) with language, residence, trade contacts, and news habits. Fame alone is not enough, and the panel disclaimed any "celebrity privilege."
• "Earlier or later than the wrong" matters because warnings about what might happen do not start the clock. William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey, 568 F.3d 425 (3d Cir. 2009).
• Part D is the place for the Oracle point. Once there is suspicion, a duty to investigate follows, and the plaintiff is charged with what reasonable inquiry would have found. Oracle America, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., 971 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2020).
• Do not overstate the owner's obligations in internal memos. There is no free-standing duty to comb records. Warren Freedenfeld Associates, Inc. v. McTigue, 531 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2008). Courts do not expect owners to scour the news or the internet. Hayden v. Koons, No. 25-498-cv (2d Cir. July 21, 2026).

Tool 5: Repudiation evidence matrix

Purpose: Test each candidate event against the elements courts care about. Owner: Responsible attorney. Timing: Whenever authorship, co-ownership, or chain of title is contested.

Reference chart for filling in the matrix:

Drafting notes.

• Use the circuit's vocabulary. Sixth and Ninth Circuit courts ask about plain and express repudiation. Zuill v. Shanahan, 80 F.3d 1366 (9th Cir. 1996); Everly v. Everly, 958 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2020). Others use a reasonable-person or inquiry formulation, with repudiation sufficient. Webster v. Dean Guitars, 955 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2020); Kwan v. Schlein, 634 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2011).
• In pre-1978 matters, add a row for each renewal. A repudiation in the original term is not automatically a repudiation of the renewal term. Wilson v. Dynatone Publishing Co., 892 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2018); 17 U.S.C. § 304.
• Do not treat the categories as automatic. Estate of George Worrell, Jr. v. Thang, Inc., No. 25-1863 (6th Cir. May 27, 2026) reversed a district court for doing that.
• An ownership time bar may also block an authorship "defense." Garza v. Everly, 59 F.4th 876 (6th Cir. 2023).

Tool 6: Preservation rider for timing evidence

Purpose: Supplement a standard litigation hold with the data that limitations disputes actually depend on. Owner: Counsel issues; IT and vendors implement. Timing: When a dispute is reasonably foreseeable. For a plaintiff, that is before the first letter.

Additional preservation instructions: dates and systems. Effective immediately, please suspend any routine deletion or rotation that affects the following, and tell [LEGAL CONTACT] if any of it has already been lost.

If you host, publish, or distribute the material: (a) web server, CDN, and application logs showing requests for [FILES/URLS]; (b) content management and media library records, including upload dates, revision histories, and deleted items; (c) storage bucket listings and object metadata; (d) version control history, build manifests, deployment logs, license server logs, and release notes; (e) sales, download, streaming, and licensing records by date from [EARLIEST DATE] forward; (f) contracts and communications with freelancers, agencies, stock services, and licensors.

If you own or enforce the work: (a) all monitoring, image-matching, and search tool accounts, configurations, and result histories; (b) reports and communications with any licensing agent or enforcement vendor; (c) the first record of the use, in native form; (d) calendars, trade show registrations, subscriptions, and social media relating to the industry during [PERIOD]; (e) contracts, royalty statements, credits, and correspondence about ownership; (f) all earlier demands, settlements, and pleadings about this work.

Do not delete first. Do not remove, rename, or alter any file or page until [LEGAL CONTACT] confirms it has been captured. We will then direct removal of every copy, including alternate addresses and cached versions.

Drafting notes.

• Lost electronic information is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e). See Litigation Holds, Spoliation, and Rule 37(e): Preserving Electronic Evidence Before It Costs You the Case and Litigation Hold and Evidence Preservation Checklist: A Practical Checklist.
• The removal instruction reflects Bell v. Wilmott Storage Services, LLC, 12 F.4th 1065 (9th Cir. 2021), where a copy remained at a different address after the first takedown.
• Plan authentication early under Fed. R. Evid. 901 and Fed. R. Evid. 902(13) and (14). See Business Records Toolkit: Rule 902 Certifications, Foundation Scripts, and Hearsay Response Charts.

Tool 7: Standstill and tolling agreement

Purpose: Stop the clock by contract while the parties talk. Owner: Either side's counsel may propose; each should have its own review. Timing: Before the earliest valuable act crosses the line. Date it, and calculate what it preserves before signing.

STANDSTILL AND TOLLING AGREEMENT

This Agreement is made as of [EFFECTIVE DATE] by and between [CLAIMANT], on behalf of itself and its [affiliates, successors, assigns, and exclusive licensees] ("Claimant"), and [RESPONDENT], on behalf of itself and its [parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, assigns, and listed licensees on Schedule B] ("Respondent").

1. Covered Claims. "Covered Claims" means all claims Claimant has or may have against Respondent under Title 17 of the United States Code, and any related state-law claims, arising from the works listed on Schedule A and the uses described there, [whether occurring before or during the Tolling Period].

2. Tolling. The period from the Effective Date through the Termination Date (the "Tolling Period") shall be excluded in computing the time for commencing any action or proceeding on a Covered Claim under any statute of limitations, including 17 U.S.C. § 507(b), and in applying laches, estoppel, or any other defense based on the passage of time. In any later action on a Covered Claim, a court shall treat the action as commenced on the Effective Date if it is filed within [30] days after the Termination Date.

3. No Revival. Nothing in this Agreement revives any claim that was barred as of the Effective Date. Each party may assert or oppose any time-based defense as it existed on the Effective Date.

4. Standstill. During the Tolling Period, neither party shall commence any action or proceeding against the other on the Covered Claims, including any action for declaratory relief or any proceeding before the Copyright Claims Board.

5. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement on [30] days' written notice under Paragraph 11. Unless earlier terminated or extended in writing, this Agreement ends on [DATE]. The later of those dates is the "Termination Date."

6. No Admission. This Agreement is not an admission of liability, of the validity, ownership, or infringement of any copyright, or of when any claim accrued. Neither its existence nor its terms may be used for any purpose except to enforce it or to compute time under Paragraph 2.

7. Ownership Statements. [OPTION A: Neither party's statements during the Tolling Period constitute a repudiation of any claimed ownership interest for purposes of any limitations period.] [OPTION B: Claimant acknowledges that Respondent has asserted exclusive ownership of the works on Schedule A since [DATE]; this Agreement does not alter the legal effect of that assertion.]

8. Exchange of Information. Within [14] days, Respondent shall provide the first and last dates of each use on Schedule A, and Claimant shall provide the registration information for each work and the date and manner in which it first learned of each use. Information exchanged is subject to Fed. R. Evid. 408 and to the confidentiality terms of Paragraph 10, but the parties may use the dates in computing time under this Agreement.

9. Preservation. Each party shall preserve documents and data relevant to the Covered Claims, including those described on Schedule C, throughout the Tolling Period.

10. Confidentiality. The parties shall keep the existence and terms of this Agreement confidential except as needed to enforce it, comply with law, or inform insurers, auditors, and advisers.

11. Notices. Notices must be in writing and sent by [email and overnight courier] to [NAMES AND ADDRESSES], and are effective on receipt.

12. Authority; Miscellaneous. Each signatory represents authority to bind the party and the entities listed. This Agreement is governed by federal law as to the computation of time and otherwise by the law of [STATE]. It may be amended only in a signed writing, and may be signed in counterparts.

Schedule A (works and uses); Schedule B (additional entities); Schedule C (data to be preserved).

Drafting notes tied to authority.

• Limitations is an affirmative defense, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1), and agreements like this are enforced in practice. In Oracle America, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., 971 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2020), the court worked back from a tolling agreement's effective date in deciding which conduct was barred.
• Paragraph 2's reference to laches and estoppel is deliberate, because delay can still matter at the remedies stage under Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014). Respondent may strike it.
• Paragraph 3 protects Respondent. Without it, a claim long expired might be argued back to life. For Claimant, it means the agreement cannot fix what is already gone, so do the Tool 2 worksheet first.
• Paragraph 4's bar on Copyright Claims Board proceedings is optional. A board proceeding carries its own statutory toll. 17 U.S.C. § 1504(b).
• Paragraph 7 needs a real choice. A party relying on a past repudiation should use Option B and avoid conduct suggesting the matter is still open. A claimant should resist it. Estate of George Worrell, Jr. v. Thang, Inc., No. 25-1863 (6th Cir. May 27, 2026) shows how a pattern of dealings can blur a repudiation.
• Name the right entities. A claim against an affiliate or downstream licensee is not tolled unless that party is bound.
• The agreement does nothing about registration. 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) and 17 U.S.C. § 412 operate on their own timing, so a Claimant should still register. See Copyright Registration Checklist: A Practical Checklist.
• Consider who should not sign. A Respondent with a strong injury-rule argument gives up less than one relying on constructive discovery, but both should compare the agreement with the daily value of aging claims.

Clause options.

Tool 8: Repudiation letter

Purpose: State an ownership position clearly enough to start the clock on any adverse claim. Owner: Counsel for the party in possession. Timing: Where continuing uncertainty costs more than a possible lawsuit. Clear it with the client first, since this letter may provoke the fight. If the recipient is represented, send it through counsel.

[DATE]

[BY OVERNIGHT COURIER WITH SIGNATURE AND BY EMAIL]

[RECIPIENT]

Re: Ownership of [WORK(S) AND VERSIONS, WITH REGISTRATION NUMBERS]

We represent [CLIENT]. [CLIENT] is the sole and exclusive owner of all right, title, and interest in the copyrights in the works listed above, including [the renewal terms] and every version of them, and has been since [DATE].

We understand that you may contend that you are an author, co-author, or owner of, or otherwise hold an interest in, these works. [CLIENT] rejects any such claim. [CLIENT] does not recognize you as an author or owner of any of these works, and does not recognize any right in you to control, license, or share in the proceeds of them as an owner.

[CLIENT] will continue to exploit these works as sole owner, and to license them, without your permission and without accounting to you as an owner. [If applicable: Any payments you receive under [AGREEMENT] are contractual payments only. They are not an acknowledgment of any ownership interest, and this letter's position does not depend on whether any amount is owed under that agreement.]

[CLIENT] reserves all rights. Please direct any response to me.

[SIGNATURE]

Drafting notes.

• Send it to the claimant personally or through their counsel, and keep proof of receipt. Repudiation must be "communicated to the claimant." Zuill v. Shanahan, 80 F.3d 1366 (9th Cir. 1996); Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment Ltd. v. Content Media Corp., 733 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2013).
• Speak to ownership in terms. An audit report about royalties did not qualify in Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publishing, LLC, 477 F.3d 383 (6th Cir. 2007). An offer to discuss credit later could be read as leaving the question open, and so did not establish repudiation as a matter of law, in Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2000). In Ritchie v. Williams, 395 F.3d 283 (6th Cir. 2005) and Webster v. Dean Guitars, 955 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2020), direct written statements did.
• Do not bury the point in a contract dispute. Estate of George Worrell, Jr. v. Thang, Inc., No. 25-1863 (6th Cir. May 27, 2026) shows that a clear statement about payment can leave ownership unaddressed. The bracketed paragraph is designed to prevent that.
• List every work, version, and term. Under Wilson v. Dynatone Publishing Co., 892 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2018), an original-term repudiation may not cover the renewal term.
• If there are several heirs or claimants, send separately to each.
• Conduct must match. Do not keep treating the recipient as a co-owner afterward, for example by sending statements labeled "co-writer share."
• Effect: an ownership claim that goes unfiled for three years is barred, and the bar reaches related infringement claims under Kwan v. Schlein, 634 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2011) and Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment Ltd. v. Content Media Corp., 733 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2013), and a disguised authorship defense under Garza v. Everly, 59 F.4th 876 (6th Cir. 2023). Ask whether a declaratory action under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 serves better. Everly began that way. Everly v. Everly, 958 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2020).
• Check for termination rights before sending. A letter does not defeat rights under 17 U.S.C. § 203 or 17 U.S.C. § 304. See Copyright Termination and Reversion: Sections 203 and 304 and Taking Back a Grant.

Response from the recipient

We have your letter of [DATE]. Our client disputes it. [CLIENT] is [an author and owner] of [WORKS] because [SHORT FACTUAL BASIS]. Please preserve all documents. Please confirm by [DATE] whether your client will agree to toll any applicable limitations period while the parties discuss this. If not, our client will proceed accordingly.

Note. A protest does not stop the clock. If no tolling agreement comes back, calendar the three-year date from the letter, with a large margin, and sue or decide not to. See Statute of Limitations Diary Checklist: A Practical Checklist.

Tool 9: First response to an old-use demand

Purpose: Preserve position, pin down dates, and avoid admissions. Owner: Defense counsel. Timing: Within the demand's response period, after Tool 6 is in place. For the full response process on image claims, see Responding to an Image Copyright Infringement Demand: A Practical Guide and Image Rights Toolkit: Claim Evaluation Worksheets, Response Letters, and Image Licensing Records.

Re: Your letter of [DATE] concerning [WORK]

We represent [CLIENT]. [CLIENT] takes these matters seriously and has taken steps to preserve relevant records. Nothing here is an admission, and all rights and defenses are reserved. This letter is a compromise communication under Fed. R. Evid. 408.

To evaluate your client's claim, please provide: (1) the copyright registration certificate and effective date for the work; (2) documents showing your client's ownership or authority, including any assignment to [AGENT]; (3) the date on which your client or anyone acting for it first learned of the use, how it learned, and who learned; (4) the specific URLs or uses at issue, with any captures showing dates; (5) any license history for the work, including rates; and (6) any prior claims about the same use.

We ask for item (3) in particular, because 17 U.S.C. § 507(b) requires that a claim be commenced within three years after it accrued, and each of the uses you identify appears to be more than [N] years old.

Drafting notes.

• Item (3) is what matters most. Claimants who answer are bound in practice, and those who do not have told you something. Under Sohm v. Scholastic Inc., 959 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2020) and Hayden v. Koons, No. 25-498-cv (2d Cir. July 21, 2026), though, you will need more than the age of the use.
• Do not state a first-use date until you have verified it in the systems. See Tool 1.
• Rule 408 limits use of compromise statements, but it does not make facts undiscoverable. Fed. R. Evid. 408.
• Do not say the use "has been removed" until someone has checked every copy. Bell v. Wilmott Storage Services, LLC, 12 F.4th 1065 (9th Cir. 2021).

Tool 10: Complaint clause bank

Purpose: Plead enough without giving away the case. Owner: Plaintiff's counsel. Timing: Before filing.

Basic version (acts all within the window).

Within the three years before this Complaint was filed, Defendant committed the acts of infringement identified in Exhibit A.

Discovery version (older acts).

Plaintiff first learned of the acts identified in Exhibit A on or about [DATE], when [FACT]. Before then, Plaintiff had no knowledge of those acts. Those acts were not reasonably discoverable earlier because [SPECIFIC FACT: e.g., the work was uncredited and appeared only in (LOCATION)].

Separate acts.

Each act identified in Exhibit A is a separate infringement of Plaintiff's exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106.

Concealment (only with a Rule 11 basis).

Defendant concealed its use by [SPECIFIC ACTS, DATES, AND PERSONS], and Plaintiff could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the use until [DATE].

Hosted content.

Defendant stored the Work on servers it controls at [URL(S)] and, on and after [DATE], continued to transmit copies of the Work in response to requests, including on [DATES SHOWN BY RECORDS].

Drafting notes.

• You need not plead timeliness at all. Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RADesign, Inc., 112 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2024); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). Plead dates only when doing so helps more than it binds you.
• Leave out boasting about your enforcement program or about how famous the infringer's use was. Hayden v. Koons, No. 25-498-cv (2d Cir. July 21, 2026) treated complaint statements as binding judicial admissions. In Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RADesign, Inc., 112 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2024), the first version was what led to dismissal in the district court.
• Plead fraud particulars under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
• The hosted-content paragraph keeps the separate-transmission theory alive. It relies on Bell v. Wilmott Storage Services, LLC, 12 F.4th 1065 (9th Cir. 2021) and Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007), and the First Circuit has noted the argument without deciding it. Foss v. Eastern States Exposition, No. 24-1360 (1st Cir. Aug. 21, 2025). Do not make it your only theory.
• For general drafting, see Drafting a Complaint That Survives a Motion to Dismiss and Copyright Infringement Litigation Toolkit: Similarity Charts, Expert Reports, and Filtration Analyses.

Tool 11: Answer clause bank

Purpose: Preserve all timing defenses with facts. Owner: Defense counsel. Timing: With the answer. An unpleaded limitations defense may be lost under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1).

Limitations, with preservation.

Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). Defendant contends that a claim accrues when the alleged infringing act occurred, and preserves that contention for further review notwithstanding [CIRCUIT AUTHORITY]. In the alternative, Plaintiff discovered or with due diligence should have discovered the alleged acts before [DATE] because [SPECIFIC FACTS].

Ownership.

To the extent Plaintiff's claims depend on Plaintiff's disputed ownership of or authorship in the Work, they are barred because any such claim accrued no later than [DATE], when [EVENT], more than three years before this action.

Estoppel.

Plaintiff is estopped because on [DATE] Plaintiff represented that [STATEMENT], intending that Defendant rely on it, and Defendant reasonably relied by [ACTION] to its detriment.

Delay, remedies only.

Plaintiff's delay in commencing suit should be taken into account in any award of equitable relief and in assessing any profits attributable to the alleged infringement.

Drafting notes.

• Keep laches where Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014) left it. It cannot bar damages within the period. It can matter in extraordinary cases, such as Chirco v. Crosswinds Communities, Inc., 474 F.3d 227 (6th Cir. 2007), and at the remedial stage.
• The injury rule sentence costs nothing. Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, 601 U.S. 366 (2024) explains that the question was not reached because the defendant had not raised it below. See also Martinelli v. Hearst Newspapers, L.L.C., 65 F.4th 231 (5th Cir. 2023), where the defendant pressed it all the way to a certiorari petition.
• More forms are in Responsive Pleading Toolkit: Answer Templates, Affirmative Defense Libraries, and Counterclaim Outlines.

Tool 12: Rule 12 outlines

Purpose: Structure a facial limitations motion, and the opposition. Owner: Litigation counsel. Timing: Response date; opposition per local rule. Review Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12: A Practical Guide for Plaintiffs and Defendants first.

Defendant's outline

1. Standard. Dismissal is proper where the complaint and noticeable matters establish the bar. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007); Staehr v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., 547 F.3d 406 (2d Cir. 2008); Foss v. Eastern States Exposition, No. 24-1360 (1st Cir. Aug. 21, 2025).
2. Claim type. [If ownership is the gravamen.] The dispute on the face of the complaint is ownership. Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment Ltd. v. Content Media Corp., 733 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2013); Kwan v. Schlein, 634 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2011).
3. Accrual. (a) Preserve the injury rule in one paragraph, citing Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, 601 U.S. 366 (2024) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting), Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. 8 (2019), and TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001). (b) Under the circuit's discovery rule, the pleaded facts show knowledge or constructive knowledge before [LINE].
4. Facts of record. Quote the complaint. Attach prior pleadings under Fed. R. Evid. 201, for the fact of what the plaintiff alleged. Foss affirmed this approach where it went unchallenged on appeal.
5. Partial relief. Ask to dismiss acts before the line, even if newer acts survive. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014).
6. Ownership-dependent claims fall with the ownership claim. Webster v. Dean Guitars, 955 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2020).

Before filing, test it against these. Does the motion rest on the plaintiff's general sophistication or history of lawsuits? Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RADesign, Inc., 112 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2024) rejected that. Does it depend on how "likely" untimeliness is? Grecco says that is not enough. Does it assume a duty to scour? Hayden v. Koons, No. 25-498-cv (2d Cir. July 21, 2026) disclaims that.

Plaintiff's outline

1. Burden. Limitations is an affirmative defense; a plaintiff need not plead around it. Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RADesign, Inc., 112 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2024); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1).
2. Standard. The bar must be clear from the face of the complaint. Even a high likelihood is not enough. Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RADesign, Inc., 112 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2024); Olson v. Law Offices of Paul Garrity, (D.D.C. May 25, 2026).
3. Rule. The circuit's discovery rule governs and has not been disturbed. Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp., 108 F.4th 458 (7th Cir. 2024); Starz Entertainment, LLC v. MGM Domestic Television Distribution, LLC, 39 F.4th 1236 (9th Cir. 2022); Martinelli v. Hearst Newspapers, L.L.C., 65 F.4th 231 (5th Cir. 2023); note Nealy left it intact and that certiorari was denied in Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RADesign, Inc., 112 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2024), 145 S. Ct. 2792 (2025).
4. Facts. What the complaint says about discovery, and what it does not say about any earlier trigger. Compare Sohm v. Scholastic Inc., 959 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2020) (passage of time) and Lixenberg v. Complex Media, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00354 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2025) (other suits).
5. Separate accrual. At a minimum, acts within three years survive. Chicago Building Design, P.C. v. Mongolian House, Inc., 770 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2014); Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014).
6. Extrinsic material. Object, and if considered, convert and allow discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
7. Leave to amend. Offer specifics if needed.

Tool 13: Rule 56 outlines and fact table

Purpose: Organize a limitations summary judgment. Owner: Litigation counsel. Timing: After limitations discovery; consider seeking leave for an early single-issue motion. See Summary Judgment Under Rule 56: Winning and Surviving Before Trial.

Statement of undisputed facts: starter table

Defendant's argument outline

1. Standard and burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The defendant carries the affirmative defense, and identifies specific facts. Hayden v. Koons, No. 25-498-cv (2d Cir. July 21, 2026); Sohm v. Scholastic Inc., 959 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2020). In the Third Circuit, show storm warnings, then the burden shifts on diligence. William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey, 568 F.3d 425 (3d Cir. 2009).
2. Claim-by-claim. Which acts are before the line?
3. Actual knowledge, if the record supports it. Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 748 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2014). Tie the date to documents.
4. Constructive discovery. Build it like Hayden: the plaintiff's location, language, industry contacts, and news habits, the prominence of the use, the time elapsed, and the plaintiff's own words. Or like Oracle America, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., 971 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2020): suspicion, duty to investigate, no reasonable investigation.
5. No tolling. The plaintiff's burden. Prather v. Neva Paperbacks, Inc., 446 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1971); Emmerich Newspapers, Inc. v. Particle Media, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00026 (S.D. Miss. July 29, 2025); Foss v. Eastern States Exposition, No. 24-1360 (1st Cir. Aug. 21, 2025).
6. Ownership. Time-barred and dispositive. Kwan v. Schlein, 634 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2011); Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment Ltd. v. Content Media Corp., 733 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2013); Webster v. Dean Guitars, 955 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2020); Sumrall v. LeSEA, Inc., 104 F.4th 622 (7th Cir. 2024). Address why the event spoke to ownership. Estate of George Worrell, Jr. v. Thang, Inc., No. 25-1863 (6th Cir. May 27, 2026).
7. In the alternative, partial summary judgment on all acts before the line, and a ruling limiting remedies under 17 U.S.C. § 412. Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp., 528 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2008); Bouchat v. Bon-Ton Department Stores, Inc., 506 F.3d 315 (4th Cir. 2007).

Plaintiff's argument outline

1. Burden is on the movant. Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RADesign, Inc., 112 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2024); Sohm v. Scholastic Inc., 959 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2020).
2. The test is fact-intensive and inferences run against the movant. Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RADesign, Inc., 112 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2024); Hayden v. Koons, No. 25-498-cv (2d Cir. July 21, 2026) (standard of review).
3. What the defendant offers is the calendar or a reputation. Sohm v. Scholastic Inc., 959 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2020); Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RADesign, Inc., 112 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2024); Lixenberg v. Complex Media, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00354 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2025).
4. No duty to comb. Warren Freedenfeld Associates, Inc. v. McTigue, 531 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2008); Hayden v. Koons, No. 25-498-cv (2d Cir. July 21, 2026).
5. The use was hard to find, and here is why. Declaration and exhibits.
6. Warnings predate the wrong or do not reach this use. William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey, 568 F.3d 425 (3d Cir. 2009).
7. Concealment, if any. Taylor v. Meirick, 712 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1983); Stone v. Williams, 970 F.2d 1043 (2d Cir. 1992).
8. Each act is separate. Later acts survive regardless. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014); Chicago Building Design, P.C. v. Mongolian House, Inc., 770 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2014).
9. Ownership. The event spoke to money, or was not communicated, or was equivocal. Estate of George Worrell, Jr. v. Thang, Inc., No. 25-1863 (6th Cir. May 27, 2026); Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publishing, LLC, 477 F.3d 383 (6th Cir. 2007); Wilson v. Dynatone Publishing Co., 892 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2018); Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2000); Everly v. Everly, 958 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2020).
10. Damages follow timeliness. Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, 601 U.S. 366 (2024).

Tool 14: Limitations discovery set

Purpose: Get the timing facts early and cheaply. Owner: Associate. Timing: First wave after the Rule 26(f) conference. Coordinate with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 limits.

Interrogatories to plaintiff.

1. For each act of alleged infringement, state the date on which you, or anyone acting for you, first learned of it, how, and who learned of it.
2. Describe every method you used during [PERIOD] to look for unauthorized uses of the Work, including tools, vendors, frequency, scope, and dates of use.
3. Identify every person or entity authorized during [PERIOD] to search for, report, or enforce against unauthorized uses of the Work.
4. Identify every demand, takedown notice, or lawsuit concerning the Work, with dates.
5. If you contend any limitations period was tolled, state every fact supporting that contention.

Requests for production to plaintiff.

1. All monitoring tool reports, search results, and alerts relating to the Work during [PERIOD], in native form where available.
2. Contracts and communications with any monitoring or enforcement vendor concerning the Work.
3. Documents showing the first record of each alleged act.
4. Documents about your ownership of the Work, including all statements by others claiming any ownership interest.

Rule 30(b)(6) topics. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).

1. The entity's program for detecting unauthorized uses during [PERIOD].
2. When and how the entity learned of each alleged act.
3. The entity's relationships with agents and vendors, and how information flowed.
4. Chain of title for the Work, including all claims by others.

Interrogatories and requests to defendant.

1. State the first and last date of each use of the Work and each location at which it was stored or displayed, including all URLs and file names.
2. Identify all persons involved in acquiring, placing, modifying, or removing the Work.
3. Describe any change to credits, metadata, watermarks, or source code headers affecting the Work.
4. Produce server, CDN, CMS, version control, and deployment records sufficient to show those dates.
5. Produce sales, download, streaming, and licensing records by date for [PERIOD].

Third-party subpoenas. Use Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 for image-tracking vendors and licensing agents.

Drafting notes.

• The first three interrogatories come directly from the factors in Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RADesign, Inc., 112 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2024).
• Expect privilege and work-product objections to vendor reports. The plaintiff who relies on the discovery date should expect a sword-and-shield response.
• An agent's knowledge is a recurring dispute, so ask who knew first.
• For system records and their foundation, see Hearsay and Business Records Checklist: A Practical Checklist.

Tool 15: Jury instructions and special verdict

Purpose: Give the jury a usable, accurate question. Owner: Trial counsel. Timing: Pretrial submissions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51. Start from your circuit's pattern instructions if they address this, and adapt to the circuit's formulation. All bracketed alternatives are forum-dependent.

Instruction A: Timeliness of infringement claims.

The law requires a claim of copyright infringement to be filed within three years after it accrues. [PLAINTIFF] filed this case on [DATE]. Each alleged act of infringement is a separate claim, and you must consider each separately [or: each group of acts on the verdict form].

Any act that occurred on or after [DATE MINUS THREE YEARS] is timely. For any act that occurred before that date, the claim is timely unless [DEFENDANT] proves by a preponderance of the evidence that, before that date, [PLAINTIFF] discovered the act or, exercising due diligence, should have discovered it.

[PLAINTIFF] "should have discovered" an act if the facts and circumstances were such that a reasonable copyright owner, exercising due diligence, would have discovered it. You may consider, among other things, how visible the use was, whether and where it was publicized, [PLAINTIFF]'s connection to those sources, what methods for finding such uses were available, and what [PLAINTIFF] was actually doing to find them. A copyright owner is not required to search constantly for infringement. But an owner may not ignore facts that would lead a reasonable owner to discover it. The passage of time alone does not establish that [PLAINTIFF] should have discovered an act, but you may consider it along with other evidence. It does not matter whether [PLAINTIFF] actually knew if a reasonable owner, using due diligence, should have discovered it.

Instruction B: Ownership-dependent claims. Use only if the court has ruled that ownership is the gravamen.

[PLAINTIFF]'s claim depends on whether [PLAINTIFF] owns the copyright, and that claim accrues only once. It accrued when [DEFENDANT] plainly and expressly repudiated [PLAINTIFF]'s ownership and that repudiation was communicated to [PLAINTIFF] [or, under the circuit's formulation: when a reasonable person in (PLAINTIFF)'s position would have learned that (DEFENDANT) was claiming ownership against (PLAINTIFF)]. A repudiation must address ownership. A dispute only about payment under an agreement is not, by itself, a repudiation of ownership. If [DEFENDANT] proves that this occurred before [DATE], you must find for [DEFENDANT] on this claim.

Instruction C: Concealment. Use only if tolling goes to the jury.

[PLAINTIFF] contends that the time to sue should be extended because [DEFENDANT] concealed the infringement. [PLAINTIFF] must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [DEFENDANT] took affirmative steps to conceal it, and that [PLAINTIFF] could not have discovered it through due diligence despite those steps. Any extension ends when a reasonably diligent owner could have discovered the infringement.

Special verdict form.

Repeat by group of acts and by work. For ownership, add: "Did [DEFENDANT] prove repudiation before [DATE]?"

Drafting notes.

• The diligence paragraph tracks Hayden v. Koons, No. 25-498-cv (2d Cir. July 21, 2026) and Sohm v. Scholastic Inc., 959 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2020). The factors come from Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RADesign, Inc., 112 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2024). Adjust for your circuit: William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey, 568 F.3d 425 (3d Cir. 2009) uses a shifting burden after storm warnings, and Oracle America, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., 971 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2020) uses suspicion plus investigation. Chicago Building Design, P.C. v. Mongolian House, Inc., 770 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2014) treats inquiry notice as a starting point only.
• "Each act is separate" comes from Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014). Grouped acts make the form workable when there are many.
• A plaintiff in a discovery-rule circuit should not ask for language suggesting that an act before the line is presumptively barred. Compare the burden language in Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RADesign, Inc., 112 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2024) and Staehr v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., 547 F.3d 406 (2d Cir. 2008). A defendant preserving the injury rule should tender an alternative instruction and object under Fed. R. Civ. P. 51.
• Instruction B draws on Zuill v. Shanahan, 80 F.3d 1366 (9th Cir. 1996), Everly v. Everly, 958 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2020), Estate of George Worrell, Jr. v. Thang, Inc., No. 25-1863 (6th Cir. May 27, 2026), and Webster v. Dean Guitars, 955 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2020).
• Instruction C draws on Stone v. Williams, 970 F.2d 1043 (2d Cir. 1992), Taylor v. Meirick, 712 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1983), and Prather v. Neva Paperbacks, Inc., 446 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1971). Who decides tolling varies, so raise it at the pretrial conference.
• Question 4 is worth the fight. Without a date, a post-trial court cannot tell which acts survive. William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey, 568 F.3d 425 (3d Cir. 2009) shows that a jury's answer on this question deserves respect. Use Fed. R. Civ. P. 49 and preserve sufficiency under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50.
• Laches and equitable adjustments are for the court. Do not put them in the jury form.

Tool 16: Damages window schedule

Purpose: Show the value of each period under each scenario, so that everyone sees what the limitations fight is worth. Owner: Associate and damages expert. Timing: With the first valuation, then before mediation and trial.

Registration check.

Drafting notes.

• A timely claim carries all its damages. Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, 601 U.S. 366 (2024); Starz Entertainment, LLC v. MGM Domestic Television Distribution, LLC, 39 F.4th 1236 (9th Cir. 2022); Polar Bear Productions, Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2004). Sohm v. Scholastic Inc., 959 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2020)'s cap is gone.
• If the first act predates registration, statutory damages and fees are gone. 17 U.S.C. § 412; Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp., 528 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2008); Bouchat v. Bon-Ton Department Stores, Inc., 506 F.3d 315 (4th Cir. 2007). Statutory damages are per work. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).
• The presumption of validity needs a certificate within five years of first publication. 17 U.S.C. § 410(c); Webster v. Dean Guitars, 955 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2020).
• The defendant bears expenses and apportionment. 17 U.S.C. § 504(b); Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014), 572 U.S. at 677-78.
• Delay and reliance can be argued at the remedial stage. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014).
• Fee exposure runs both ways under 17 U.S.C. § 505. Consider the effect on settlement. See Copyright Damages and Remedies: Statutory Damages, Profits, Injunctions, and Fees.

Tool 17: Preservation list for appeal

Purpose: Avoid losing good arguments to waiver. Owner: Lead counsel. Timing: Review at each pleading, each motion, and before the charge conference.

Drafting notes.

• Foss v. Eastern States Exposition, No. 24-1360 (1st Cir. Aug. 21, 2025) held the daily-display theory waived, because it first appeared in a reply brief and could not be gleaned from earlier filings.
• Hayden v. Koons, No. 25-498-cv (2d Cir. July 21, 2026) declined to consider separate accrual for DMCA claims, because the plaintiff did not develop it below and offered only a citation on appeal.
• Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, 601 U.S. 366 (2024) footnote 1 shows that the Supreme Court holds parties to the reformulated question, and that failure to preserve below can keep a question out of the Court.
• Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. 8 (2019) is a further example: the Court declined to consider a fraud-specific discovery rule that had not been preserved.

These forms are general starting points and need to be fitted to your facts, your court, and your client's goals by someone who knows all three, so nothing here should be read as legal advice for a particular dispute.

Related Documents

Related Articles

• The Copyright Statute of Limitations After Warner Chappell v. Nealy: Discovery, Separate Accrual, and How Far Back Damages Reach: the reasoning behind the tools.
• Statutes of Limitations, Accrual, and Tolling: The Clock That Ends Most Claims: general accrual and tolling law.
• Copyright Damages and Remedies: Statutory Damages, Profits, Injunctions, and Fees: how Tool 16's numbers become an award.
• Copyright Termination and Reversion: Sections 203 and 304 and Taking Back a Grant: how termination interacts with Tool 8.
• Litigation Holds, Spoliation, and Rule 37(e): Preserving Electronic Evidence Before It Costs You the Case: the duties behind Tool 6.
• Copyright Preemption Under Section 301: When Federal Law Wipes Out Your State Law Claim: the state-law screen in Tool 3.
• Missed Federal Deadlines: Rule 6, Excusable Neglect, and the Deadlines a Court Cannot Excuse: which deadlines courts can excuse.

Related Guides

• Evaluating the Timeliness of a Copyright Claim: A Practical Guide: when and how to use each of these tools.
• Responding to an Image Copyright Infringement Demand: A Practical Guide: the full response to an image claim.
• Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12: A Practical Guide for Plaintiffs and Defendants: general Rule 12 practice for Tool 12.

Related Checklists

• Copyright Claim Timeliness Checklist: A Practical Checklist: the desk version of the same analysis.
• Statute of Limitations Diary Checklist: A Practical Checklist: tracking the dates these tools produce.
• Litigation Hold and Evidence Preservation Checklist: A Practical Checklist: implementing Tool 6.
• Summary Judgment Motion Checklist: A Practical Checklist: the general motion process for Tool 13.

Related Toolkits

• Image Rights Toolkit: Claim Evaluation Worksheets, Response Letters, and Image Licensing Records: image-specific evaluation sheets and letters.
• Copyright Infringement Litigation Toolkit: Similarity Charts, Expert Reports, and Filtration Analyses: expert and similarity work in the same cases.
• Responsive Pleading Toolkit: Answer Templates, Affirmative Defense Libraries, and Counterclaim Outlines: broader answer templates to go with Tool 11.
• Business Records Toolkit: Rule 902 Certifications, Foundation Scripts, and Hearsay Response Charts: certifications for the system records in Tools 1 and 6.